Cover not available

In:Linking up with Video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research
Edited by Heidi Salaets and Geert Brône
[Benjamins Translation Library 149] 2020
► pp. 107–125

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 4
Role-space in VRS and VRI

 | University of Central Lancashire
Published online: 13 January 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.05lee
Abstract
This chapter explores issues related to Video Relay Services (VRS), a telephone access service for Deaf people and Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). First there is a discussion of Deaf people and specifically users of sign language and how they negotiate remote communicative interactions (initially without direct access to audio-only technologies such as the telephone). Similarities and differences between VRS services for Deaf people and remote interpreted interactions (which can involve signed and spoken or solely spoken language interlocutors) are then explored.
The concept of role-space (Llewellyn-Jones and Lee 2014) is then introduced as a lens through which these interactions can be analysed. A discussion of VRI situations through the role-space dimensions of interaction management, participant alignment and presentation of self is presented. Finally, recommendations for factors to be considered to make VRI situations more effective are presented.
Article outline
  • Remote interactions: Specific issues involving signed languages and deaf people
    • Signed languages and remote interactions
    • Deaf peoples’ experiences with remote interactions
    • Telephone relay services (TRS)
    • Video relay services (VRS)
  • Role-space as a framework for analysing interpreted interactions
    • Descriptions of the axes
      • Interaction management
      • Participant alignment
      • Presentation of self
  • Application of role-space to VRI
    • General issues relating to technology
    • Interaction management
    • Participant alignment
    • Presentation of self
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (42)
References
Artl, Grace Beverley. 2015. “Act Like a Lady: The Impact of Gender Identity on American Sign Language – English Interpreters,” MA Thesis, University of Western Oregon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
AVIDICUS [URL]
Balogh, Katalin, and Erik Hertog. 2012. “AVIDICUS comparative studies – part II: Traditional, video- conference and remote interpreting in police interviews.” In Video- conference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 101–116. Guildford: University of Surrey.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bélanger, Danielle-Claude. 2004. “Interactional Patterns in Dialogue interpreting,” Journal of Interpretation: 1–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine, and Katalin Balogh. 2016. “Bilingual videoconferencing in legal proceedings: Findings from the AVIDICUS projects.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Electronic protocol – an opportunity for a transparent and fast process, Warsaw May 2015. Warsaw: Ministry of Justice of Poland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine. 2016. “The European AVIDICUS projects: Collaborating to assess the viability of video-mediated interpreting in legal proceedings.” European Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (1): 173–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunson, Jeremy. 2008. “The practice and organization of sign language interpreting in video relay service: An institutional ethnography of access,” PhD dissertation, Syracuse University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Video relay service interpreters. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devaux, Jerome. 2017. “Technologies in Interpreter-Medicated Criminal Court Hearings: An Actor-Network Account on the Interpreter’s Perception of her Role-Space,” PhD dissertation, University of Salford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
FCC(1). [URL], accessed 30/03/2017
FCC(2). [URL], accessed 30/03/2017
. 1997. “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph E. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael K. McBeath, 196–214. London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: PenguinGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jeremy L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Humphries, Tom, Poorna Kushalnagar, Gaurav Mathur, Donna Jo Napoli, Carol Padden, and Christian Rathmann. 2014. “Ensuring language acquisition for deaf children: What linguists can do.” Language, 90 (2): 31–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kent, Stephanie Jo. 2012. “Deaf Voice and the Invention of Community Interpreting,” Journal of Interpretation: 22 (1): Article 3.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Interpreting,” PhD Diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Robert G. 2005. “From Theory to Practice: Making the Interpreting Process Come Alive in the Classroom.” In Advances in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters, ed. by Cynthia Roy, 138–150. Washington, DC Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Robert G., and Peter Llewellyn-Jones. 2011. “Re-visiting role: Arguing for a multi-dimensional analysis of interpreter behaviour.” Paper presented at the Supporting Deaf People online conference. January 2011.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leeds, Rebecca. 2009. “Who do they think we are? The view of the interpreter, as seen by medical practitioners”, Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Leeds.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linton, Ralph. 1936. The Study of Man. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llewellyn-Jones, Peter. 2014. “The impact of monological interpreting models when applied to remote interpretation.” In D. Fišer and J. Peverelli (eds) Technology vs Interpreter: Support or Replacement? Proceedings of the 2013 efsli Conference, Brussels: European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llewellyn-Jones, Peter, and Robert G. Lee. 2009. “The ‘Role’ of the Community/Public service interpreter.” Paper presented at the Supporting Deaf People online conference. January 2009.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Getting to the core of role: Defining the role-space of interpreters.” International Journal of Interpreter Education, 5(2): 54–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
,. 2014. Redefining the role of the Community interpreter: The concept of role-space. Carlton-le-Moorland, UK: SLI Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malone, Martin. 1997. Worlds of Talk: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Conversation. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1999. Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan, and Robert G. Lee. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peterson, Rico. 2011. “Profession in pentimento: A narrative inquiry into interpreting in video settings.” In Advances in interpreting research, ed. by Laura Swabey, and Brenda Nicodemus, 199–223. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Porrero, Placencia, and Gunnar Hellstrom. 1998 “The Public Swedish Video Relay Service:. In Improving the Quality of Life for the European Citizen: Technology for Inclusive Design and Equality (Volume 4), ed. by Placencia Porrero, and E. Ballabio, (eds.), 267–270 IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhardt, Laurie Reese. 2015. “Deaf-Hearing Interpreter Teams: Navigating Trust in Shared Space,” MA thesis, University of Western Oregon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia. 1993. “The problem with definitions, descriptions and the role metaphor of interpreters.” Journal of Interpretation, 6:127–153Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Interpreting as a discourse process. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salaets, Heidi, and Katalin Balogh. 2017. “Participants’ and Interpreters’ Perception of the Interpreter’s Role in Interpreter-mediated Investigative Interviews of Minors: Belgium and Italy as a Case Study.” In Ethics, Ideology and Policy Development in Public Service Interpreting and Translating. R. Tipton, and C. Valero-Garces, (eds) 151–178. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sedran, Denise 2016. “Questioning assumptions of “relay” in VRS: An application of role-space”. (Paper presented at the Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada Conference, Fredericton, NB, Canada, 13 July 2016).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Telecommunications 47 United States Code of Federal Regulations § 64.604
Turner, Ralph H. 1956. “Role-taking, role standpoint, and reference-group behaviour.” American Journal of Sociology, 61(4):316–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. New York: LongmanGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue